The TSA violated the Administrative Procedure Act by ignoring objections to and required procedures regarding the scanner/groping program, and by ignoring its statutory obligation to assure that its use of technology "[does] not erode privacy protections . . . ."

The program violates the Fourth Amendment, despite the generally broad scope of allowable "administrative searches." See United States v. Aukai, 497 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2007).

The TSA also failed to comply with its obligations under the Privacy Act. (In other news - at least it's probably news to the Trouser Search Administration - we have a "Privacy Act.")

Because letting strangers see you naked, let alone having them fondle you unbidden, violates the religious beliefs of Muslims among others (see, e.g., The Church of Don't Touch My Junk), the program violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Finally, and I think this is my favorite, assuming the program is not "lawful" because it violates the Fourth Amendment it would also violate the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2004, which prohibits peeking at parts that people reasonably expect to be private. The last sentence of the brief simply states, "Exhibit 1 makes clear that this standard is met," and I won't reproduce that picture here, because you know what? It sure does.

There have been some reports that the TSA, in its quest to be liked and respected even more, has actually "opened an investigation" against the guy who was not allowed to fly the other day because he would not agree to either be scanned or groped. If he doesn't have a legal defense fund or pro bono representation yet, he should.

November 10, 2010

Bad enough that Google Maps allegedly caused a woman to be hit by a car because its route told her to walk along a highway and failed to warn her that said highway posed certain risks (namely cars). Now it has been accused of causing, or at least complicating, an international incident after Costa Rica said Nicaraguan troops had used Google Maps to "justify" crossing the border.

Costa Rica's main newspaper quoted the Nicaraguan commander as saying Google Maps proved they were legally in Nicaraguan territory. Roughly translated, he said: "If you see the Google satellite photo, you will see the border [the white line in the picture to the right]. In the last 3,000 meters [i.e., of the river], both sides are Nicaraguan. It's clear that from El Castillo [where the white line hits the river] on, then the border is the right bank." Apparently, the Nicaraguans had crossed the river as shown, and this guy was citing Google Maps to support his claim to the territory under international law.

He was wrong.

Google has since admitted its map is not accurate, though it blamed the U.S. government for giving it bogus data: "[after talking with the] data supplier for this particular border (the U.S. Department of State), we determined that there was indeed an error . . . [of] up to 2.7 kilometers. The U.S. Department of State has provided a corrected version and we are now working to update our maps." As this site shows, the official maps of both Costa Rica and Nicaragua agree that the area belongs to Costa Rica, so by taking advantage of Google's error the commander was just being a wise guy.

As noted, Google is blaming the feds for the mistake, but as the blog search engine land pointed out, Bing gets it pretty much right (although it is also not perfect):

It therefore appears that Costa Rica does have a valid case here. What it doesn't have is an army, which is probably why the commander felt brave enough to stroll into another country in the first place. But the legal process should be able to resolve this dispute (again), partly because no matter how far you zoom in on this area, it does not really look worth shooting or getting shot over.

October 15, 2010

Occasionally people will tell me typos aren't that big of a deal. I know at least one person who thinks otherwise.

Due to an unfortunate typographical error, Green Party gubernatorial candidate Rich Whitney will appear as "Rich Whitey" on electronic-voting machines in 23 Illinois voting wards in November.

According to the Chicago Sun-Times, about half of the wards are in "predominantly African-American areas."

Apparently, Whitney's name is spelled correctly on the initial screens and (according to Chicago Board of Elections spokesman Jim Allen) on the all-important selection screen, but the unfortunate-typo version appears on later screens where voters can review their choices (and, presumably, go back and make changes). Allen stated -- understated, actually -- that this was a "difficult situation," but said that the important thing is that "the name is spelled correctly where it counts." That's good, at least, because he also said there isn't time to fix the typo and reprogram the machines before Election Day.

Rich Whitey -- sorry, Whitney -- is not at all pleased. "I don't want to be identified as 'Whitey,'" said Whitney. "If this is happening in primarily African-American wards, that's an even bigger concern." Whitney speculated that this might be more than a simple typo. "I don't know if this is machine politics at play or why this happened," he said, although since polls show him getting just two percent of the vote at the moment, the Machine is probably busy with more significant fraud.

On the other hand, maybe it did this just to see if it could. I guess this would probably have been hard for the Machine to resist, once the Machine thought of it.

Allen also predicted that about 90 percent of the ballots cast will be paper ones, on which Whitney's name is (according to Allen) spelled correctly. He said the city would also post a list of all the candidates, with (according to Allen) all the names spelled correctly, at every polling place on Election Day. Somehow, that has not comforted Rich Whitney, who says he is contemplating legal action to force an electronic correction too.

One could be forgiven (I hope) for thinking that the typo doesn't really matter, since Rich Whiteys seem to win most elections anyway. (That's an observation and NOT an endorsement.)

September 30, 2010

If you need another reason not to use Facebook, here's one: your "friends" may not stay safely on the Internet. Here's another: some of them may be really touchy about their ugly babies.

Obviously, all new babies are ugly. I guess you're not supposed to say that, but it's still a fact. It's not their fault, and most of them get over it, but they are just not attractive people at that point. I mean, if you saw a grown-up with a face like that, you'd be on the phone to the circus, not saying "oh, how adorable." Why should babies get special treatment? So I have no doubt that this one, which was only four days old, was in fact ugly. (I tried to find the right Facebook to confirm, but had no luck.)

But again, my understanding is that this is not something you're supposed to say out loud, especially if the parents responsible are within earshot. And as everyone should have learned by now, but hasn't, there are lots of things you should not say on Facebook, either.

Which is not to say that you should expect to get stabbed over it.

Two Chicago women have been charged with felony aggravated battery and aggravated assault, respectively, after one of them allegedly stabbed another woman over "ugly baby" comments on Facebook. Exactly what happened is a little confused, partly because there was a mother-daughter pair on each side of the brawl. Apparently, one 18-year-old called the other 18-year-old's baby "ugly" on a Facebook page, and at some point thereafter, the new mother and her own mother showed up in person to discuss the comments.

"The daughter came over to my house with the mom to see the messages and she hit me in the eye trying to hit my daughter," said 39-year-old Tiffany Scott. What happened after that is not clear, but Scott said that 15 minutes later, the other mom got stabby. "I was going to my daughter's car," Scott said, "and she came out with the knives." She used them several times, too, although Scott is apparently going to be okay.

Getting stabbed is a drag, especially when you didn't start the fight in the first place. "[Y]ou'd never think your mother would get stabbed over something you said, verbally or on a computer," said Scott's daughter, who now knows better.

"You see all this water-based paint?" he said to the officers. "You shoot me with that and you'll kill me."

I'm not a scientist, although I did have a gift subscription to Scientific American for a year and I did read parts of several of those issues. My understanding of why water and electricity are dangerous is that the water increases conductivity and so increases the likelihood that electricity from a given source (wall socket, lightning bolt) will flow through you rather than something else on its way to wherever electricity goes. Since the electricity from a Taser is already going to flow through you, it doesn't matter that much if your skin is wet when it does.

That might all be BS, but the fact remains that the water-based-paint strategy didn't work. Twice. The man was subdued after a brief struggle, and was booked for domestic violence and various assault charges.

Police did say the officers' uniforms had to be cleaned, so maybe the paint strategy will have some deterrent effect in the future.

September 03, 2010

If you are running for office in Alabama, it would be great to have the endorsement of University of Alabama football coach Nick Saban. Having a picture of you and Coach Saban together would really go a long way. And with today's technology, the fact that you have never actually met Coach Saban is not an obstacle to realizing this dream.

Dorothy Davidson, a candidate for mayor of Bessemer, Alabama (a suburb of Birmingham), said last month that Saban had endorsed her candidacy, and she distributed fliers showing the two of them side-by-side on a golf course. Asked about this, the school's athletic department said Saban had not endorsed anybody.

Asked about that, Davidson insisted that the picture of her with Saban on the golf course was real and had been taken three weeks before. When she was later shown an eerily similar picture of Saban apparently standing in exactly the same place on the same golf course, wearing the same clothes, and with his hair in exactly the same position, but with his wife next to him instead of Davidson, Davidson then clarified that position. Her picture had been taken three weeks before. It had then been (poorly) digitally added to the Saban photo, after Saban's inconveniently placed wife had been digitally removed.

Actually, it appears she was not entirely removed -- it looks to me like some of Mrs. Saban's hair is still visible at the top right of Davidson's head.

According to Davidson, "[t]hey said we could do it this way," and her campaign manager, Kevin Morris, clarified that "they" was Coach Saban. Morris said he had asked Saban about it one day on the golf course and that Saban had said okay.

Later that day, though, Morris admitted that maybe that was not one hundred percent true, either. "I lied," he conceded, but said he had deceived Davidson, too. Obviously Davidson knew she had not posed with Saban, but Morris said he had told her (falsely) that Saban had agreed to the Photoshoppery. (Whether Saban ever expressed support for Davidson is not clear. Morris maintains that he did. Saban himself does not seem to have commented, but the athletic department consistently denied that the coach was ever contacted for an endorsement.) Morris resigned.

In the election on August 24, Davidson got 13 percent of the vote, placing fourth out of six. The top two will go head-to-head in an October runoff, although maybe there will be three in the picture by election time.

August 09, 2010

[T]here is provided rotatable apparatus capable of subjecting the mother and the fetus to a centrifugal force directed to assist and supplement the efforts of the mother so that such centrifugal force and her efforts act in concert to overcome the action of resisting forces and facilitate the delivery of the child. . . . Means are provided to assure the safe delivery of the fetus and to stop the machine immediately upon such delivery. These means comprise a pocket-shaped reception net made of strong, elastic material . . . . [The weight of the fetus in said net, once delivered,] causes an electric switch in the control box to stop the drive motor and the rotation of the whole machine.

August 05, 2010

Previously: "The machines have zero storage capability," and there is "no way to save, transmit, or print the image."

August 4: "[A]pproximately 35,314 images . . . have been stored" on just one machine at one federal courthouse in Florida, the U.S. Marshals Service admitted. Also, turns out the scanners can be operated from a "remote location," which would seem to involve some sort of image transmission.

July 29, 2010

A class-action lawsuit filed last week claims that Apple is guilty of fraud and consumer-law violations because the iPad may shut down under certain "environmental conditions." Specifically, Jacob Baltazar and two other plaintiffs claim that the device may overheat and turn itself off if used (for example) outdoors in warm weather, and allege that "nowhere in any of Apple's advertising materials" is this temperature problem disclosed.

Actually, Apple's materials do say that the iPad will operate at temperatures between 32 to 95 degrees, which seems to suggest that it might not operate at temperatures above 95 degrees. But I guess you would only know that if you had bothered to read the materials on the website.

Wait -- plaintiffs apparently did read the materials on the website, because they complain that the website promised them that "[r]eading on iPad is just like reading a book." And they allege they have discovered since buying the product that this is not literally true:

[C]ontrary to this promise, using the iPad is not "just like reading a book" at all since books do not close when the reader is enjoying them in the sunlight or in other normal environments. This promise, like other portions of Apple's marketing material for the iPad, is false.

Having allegedly bought their iPads because they were looking for something that was not a book but worked just like one, plaintiffs are now seeking damages and/or restitution on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated consumers (assuming there are any).

At Consumerist, where I saw this, Chris Walters wrote that "[i]f the plaintiffs win, I think Apple should also be forced to install a wind sensor so that pages flip automatically when you're outdoors in a strong breeze. Then the company could sell . . . a wireless accessory that you would have to put on top of the screen to 'hold down' the pages." Excellent points.

June 15, 2010

A Utah company has developed a product that may revolutionize conference calls for the bored associate (or, occasionally, partner, although they are usually doing most of the talking), so long as he is taking the call from the privacy of his own office. Use of the inflatable "Pillow Tie" is pretty much self-explanatory, but the website features this helpful graphic:

Step two is inflation, in case you are not sure what's going on there.

According to the company's website, Pillow Ties are made of a microfiber/silk blend in a soft and seamless weave that will not leave you with incriminating facial sleep lines, although I should point out that the company does not guarantee no such lines will be created. The ties come in a variety of what seem to be passable designs, although I wouldn't get too excited about that aspect of the product, but they do look reasonably comfy. Since they cost less than $20, you could conceivably buy two or three to wear at the same time for even greater potential comfort.

If you have just now had the bright idea to buy a Pillow Tie, remove the inflatable part and install that into your $1,200 Stefano Ricci (a stupidly expensive tie brand that I just looked up) so that you can be both well-rested and stylish, forget it. "Pillow Ties are specially designed and manufactured to be what we like to call 'Inflatable Compatible,'" the company says. "In short, the inflatable piece cannot be exchanged with other ties, unless they are Pillow Ties." Besides, the 3,000 Swarovski crystals that are all over the Stefano Ricci would just get embedded in your face anyway, and I don't know what those things are but I bet it would be pretty nasty to have them embedded in your face.

There does not seem to be an equivalent for female lawyers, although I assume they can continue to rely on their purses and/or small but comfy pillows concealed therein.